query_civic

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, description bears burden. It correctly states a search operation returning clinical evidence, but does not disclose behaviors like rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. Adequate but no extra detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main action. Every word adds value; no redundancy or waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies input type and output nature, though could briefly mention output format for full completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's parameter description without adding new meaning. No additional semantics provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'CIViC database', and specifies it returns clinical evidence for cancer-relevant variants. It distinguishes from sibling query tools (e.g., query_clinvar, query_cadd) by focusing on cancer variants.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Implicitly, the focus on cancer variants suggests context, but lacks direct comparison or exclusion criteria found in sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.